8 ms·

When I got to the last paragraph or two, I realized this was not just a "computers are complicated" post. He marks a specific social problem the complexity of t

When I got to the last paragraph or two, I realized this was not just a "computers are complicated" post. He marks a specific social problem the complexity of the technology has created. This is the best way to frame the "tech laws problem" I've seen in a long time. I'm curious: what is the best way to approach the bikeshedding issue? On the one hand, the people who recognize the issue tend to be technical. On the other, the solution will inevitably be a social one, unless something comes along that makes patents and technological laws moot. Here are three social avenues I could see being helpful, but none of them seems to solve the problem. I'd love to know what people are doing in this area. a) Improve technical education for the general public so that they can call BS, or make reasonable decisions. b) Improve technical education of public servants that make crucial decisions regarding technology. I'm not competent to rule in a legal case about pollution, so why should we assume judges are competent to rule in a legal case about code? (How do you measure that? Certifications? - egh). c) Improve social outreach for technical people. Most technical people probably want to build cool things instead of sit in Congress, knock on doors, or otherwise get involved. I've talked with engineers who despise legal proceedings so much they started trolling the lawyers in depositions. Honestly I'd rather build something cool than think for five hours about how to get people to care about patent law. Maybe that should change. I'd love feedback on this, because the bikeshedding issue is the scariest social problem I can't think of a solution to. It doesn't just affect a specific patent, it affects the way we rule on them in general. If you are both a lawyer and technical, I would really love your feedback, here, or via email.

ibudiallo 14y ago
If you had to have your patent reviewed by a team of engineers before it is approved, then we will have less patents.(we don't need a patent for a slick button) And to file for a law suit, you will also have to have a team of engineers to review it. This could be a very good thing.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Patents are generally reviewed by degree holders in the same field. Submit a machine, it'll be reviewed by someone trained as a mechanical engineer. Submit a new formula for flubber, a chemist will be assigned to look at it.
  - RougeFemme 14y ago
    I don't know how it is now, but when I graduated my understanding was that as long as your degree was in the general field, you were qualified to review the patent application. So a machine could be reviewed by someone with any engineering degree - industrial, chemical,civil, etc. And my brother's friend - a civil engineer - used to periodically call me to ask me about some coding-related patent. And I - definitely a non-hacker - would always respond "that's just a best practice. anyone who's had a few undergrad programming classes knows that. how can that be patentable". Hopefully, it's changed, but I wouldn't count on it.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      I dunno. What I know about patents is what my lawyer has been telling me. There's basically about a zillion ways for a patent to fail, examination is only one. For example, when I lodge in national offices, my application will become public. Anybody will be able to lodge objections and I will be on the hook for the lot, basically.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Most patents are reviewed by people with corresponding qualifications within the broad categories: mechanical, chemical, biological, electrical. Software tends to fall into the electrical camp.
stephengillie 14y ago
To me, bikeshedding is a signal from politicians, judges, and other public servants, that they don't feel the problem is important enough for them to understand. Like us, they have limited cognitive resources (processing time, calories, actions-per-day, etc), so they have to be cautious about how they budget it. How do we force technical information into the brains of our government employees? OR What incentives do we need to provide tech workers to be more politically active?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  As far as incentives for tech workers getting active, the recent spate of badly-written legislation (SOPA, CISPA, etc) has been acting as a great motivator. I literally do not personally know a single technology professional who isn't aware of these laws and their ramifications. The great majority of them have informed their congresscritters and helped get the word out in some way as well. Now if only there was a way to parlay that short term political interest into something more long term and substantial..
- maxwell 14y ago
  Eventually, it appears most jobs will be replaced either by computers or people who program them-- in the same way that most work from before the Industrial Revolution has been replaced by mechanical machines or literate-and-numerate-people. "Non-technical people" will be replaced by ones who don't think of computers and programming as technology, any more than we do books and math. Programming magnifies individual task completion potential, allowing one person to accomplish through scripted automation what would otherwise require manual delegation. It's not software that's eating the world, it's programming. Software is computational state, but programming is a state of mind. The "Computer Revolution" has happened, but programming illiteracy is still very high, programming fluency very low, and programming languages very primitive. Around the French Revolution, over 200 years ago, when the modern printing press had already been around for almost 350 years, the literacy rate in France was just crossing 50%. [1] And world illiteracy has over halved since the Unix epoch, 43 years ago. [2] The only solution I see is to help spread "programmacy". 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illiteracy_france.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illiteracy_france.png 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_illiteracy_1970-2010.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_illiteracy_1970-2010...
javert 14y ago
> what is the best way to approach the bikeshedding issue? Required background reading for anyone who hasn't seen it: bikeshed.com Regarding (a): Give people lots of choices, and they'll learn to pick the right ones. There is a reason the two main smartphone platforms have completely won out over the older stuff. It's just really sad there there aren't more to choose from, since iOS and Android both have major areas of suckage. Regarding (b): Public servants should not be making crucial decisions about technology. The government could never build the massively complex system described by OP, and regulation would have killed it quickly (probably by cementing an AT&T/IBM duopoly in technology).
hrktb 14y ago
a) b) and c) are all education problems, and I think for every other instance of unwashed masses catching up on technical knowledge, the only "solution" has been to wait decades for a generation shift with knowledgeable people becoming teachers and parents. People didn't understand cars, or electricity, or electronics either, but now everyone has a basic knowledge about the working of these, and they can get what the repair guy is saying. IMHO for any new technology there is a minimum time measured in years or decades depending on the complexity to have it properly assimilated. Mainstream internet is 20 years old ? Congress people should all be knowledgeable about it in 10 or 20 years.
dclowd9901 14y ago
I think the solutions simple: where traditional government oversight and legislation is ill equipped to understand the problems about which they're legislating, they need to create a technocratic branch to further handle legislation where it seems a fit. A sort of technocratic release valve. As far as how to appoint leaders or czars for the new technocratic branch, I'm stuck, but I'm sure someone could figure out a good way to incentivize nonpartisan experts to get involved. Maybe simply wikitize legislation, allowing a very decentralized passing of legislation.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >I think the solutions simple: where traditional government oversight and legislation is ill equipped to understand the problems about which they're legislating, they need to create a technocratic branch to further handle legislation where it seems a fit. You have to be careful with things like this because of regulatory capture. And also because setting up a group of people whose stated purpose is to regulate something causes them to try to slowly regulate every part of it, even in cases where private ordering would lead to better outcomes. A huge part of the existing problem is instances where Congress doesn't need to act but does anyway.
rayiner 14y ago
So before I was a lawyer I was an engineer, and most of my friends are still engineers. One of the things that I noticed then and still notice now is that tech people think they're special. They think that their problems are somehow qualitatively different from all the other problems that society has ever faced. They are simultaneously optimists (we can build anything!) and pessimists (we have no hope of influencing the system!). They are both self-centered (our things are the most important things!) and convinced of their own impotence (nobody cares about the things we do!). Indeed, this article exudes of "we're special!" If tech people want a world with sensible tech laws, the first thing they have to do is internalize one simple fact: computer tech isn't special. It's no different, in the grand scheme of things, than petrochemical refining or agriculture. It's just one specialized problem domain within a larger society. That realization is simultaneously humbling and empowering. If tech is the same as everything else, then that means the same social tools that work for everything else can be leveraged to work for tech! And that means (c), lots and lots of (c). But not just (c), even though (c) is the starting step. Ultimately, through (c) you can do (b). For example, a judge isn't a domain expert in petro-chemical refining either, but they make rulings on petro-chemical refining all the time and it works more or less well. That's because the system is structured so as to not require judges to be experts in everything. It is structured so people versed in a specific problem domain, be it petro-chemical refining or code, can explain in plain terms the moving parts of his case, and the judge, generally a highly intelligent person, can make decisions based on those explanations. And ultimately, through (c) you get to (a). Ultimately, the burden is on tech people to convince the public at large to care about the things that they care about. I've used this example elsewhere, but I think it's a really important one. The tech industry complains up and down about its inability to fight the "big money" of the media companies. Yet, the entire U.S. movies and music industry put together are about $50 billion in domestic revenue per year, or equivalent to just Apple's revenues in just one quarter. You're telling me that the tech industry can't fight the "big money" of an industry that's a fraction of its size? Please! Another example: Apple's revenues and profits are about the same as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase combined. Tech isn't the skinny schoolboy getting picked on by the big kids--it's the behemoth. The only sector that can compare is the petro-chemical sector. We live in a democracy. In a democracy, you can't just sit around waiting for everyone else to realize how wonderful and special you are and legislate to further your interests. You have to integrate. You have to participate in the political process. You have to explain to policymakers the moving parts of your industry, and you have to convince the public to care about the things you care about. And you have to accept that the policy makers sometimes will not agree with you (because they're balancing a broader array of interests than just your own), and you'll have to accept that the public won't necessarily buy into your worldview. But when that happens it's not an excuse to take your marbles and go home. For a contra-example, look at environmental legislation. Environmentalists have been incredibly successful considering there is very little money behind the movement, and that the people on the opposing side of the table are petro-chemical giants, each of which are 2-10x as large as the entire domestic media industry that tech people think are too monied to be overcome. Yet they have been remarkably successful given those odds! Why? Because they don't hole themselves up in ivory towers. They participate in the political process. They translate their value systems into things that perk up the ears of politicians (this environmental bill might cost a few jobs, but it will be more than made up for by the avoided health costs from the reduction in pollution!) Jobs, costs, etc. Those are things politicians care about, and indeed those are the things they're elected to care about! Sometimes, they even fight dirty. They participate in the war that is living in a democratic society with competing factions.

ibudiallo 14y ago

If you had to have your patent reviewed by a team of engineers before it is approved, then we will have less patents.(we don't need a patent for a slick button) And to file for a law suit, you will also have to have a team of engineers to review it. This could be a very good thing.

jacques_chester 14y ago
Patents are generally reviewed by degree holders in the same field. Submit a machine, it'll be reviewed by someone trained as a mechanical engineer. Submit a new formula for flubber, a chemist will be assigned to look at it.
- RougeFemme 14y ago
  I don't know how it is now, but when I graduated my understanding was that as long as your degree was in the general field, you were qualified to review the patent application. So a machine could be reviewed by someone with any engineering degree - industrial, chemical,civil, etc. And my brother's friend - a civil engineer - used to periodically call me to ask me about some coding-related patent. And I - definitely a non-hacker - would always respond "that's just a best practice. anyone who's had a few undergrad programming classes knows that. how can that be patentable". Hopefully, it's changed, but I wouldn't count on it.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    I dunno. What I know about patents is what my lawyer has been telling me. There's basically about a zillion ways for a patent to fail, examination is only one. For example, when I lodge in national offices, my application will become public. Anybody will be able to lodge objections and I will be on the hook for the lot, basically.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Most patents are reviewed by people with corresponding qualifications within the broad categories: mechanical, chemical, biological, electrical. Software tends to fall into the electrical camp.

stephengillie 14y ago

To me, bikeshedding is a signal from politicians, judges, and other public servants, that they don't feel the problem is important enough for them to understand. Like us, they have limited cognitive resources (processing time, calories, actions-per-day, etc), so they have to be cautious about how they budget it. How do we force technical information into the brains of our government employees? OR What incentives do we need to provide tech workers to be more politically active?

Karunamon 14y ago
As far as incentives for tech workers getting active, the recent spate of badly-written legislation (SOPA, CISPA, etc) has been acting as a great motivator. I literally do not personally know a single technology professional who isn't aware of these laws and their ramifications. The great majority of them have informed their congresscritters and helped get the word out in some way as well. Now if only there was a way to parlay that short term political interest into something more long term and substantial..
maxwell 14y ago
Eventually, it appears most jobs will be replaced either by computers or people who program them-- in the same way that most work from before the Industrial Revolution has been replaced by mechanical machines or literate-and-numerate-people. "Non-technical people" will be replaced by ones who don't think of computers and programming as technology, any more than we do books and math. Programming magnifies individual task completion potential, allowing one person to accomplish through scripted automation what would otherwise require manual delegation. It's not software that's eating the world, it's programming. Software is computational state, but programming is a state of mind. The "Computer Revolution" has happened, but programming illiteracy is still very high, programming fluency very low, and programming languages very primitive. Around the French Revolution, over 200 years ago, when the modern printing press had already been around for almost 350 years, the literacy rate in France was just crossing 50%. [1] And world illiteracy has over halved since the Unix epoch, 43 years ago. [2] The only solution I see is to help spread "programmacy". 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illiteracy_france.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illiteracy_france.png 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_illiteracy_1970-2010.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_illiteracy_1970-2010...

javert 14y ago

> what is the best way to approach the bikeshedding issue? Required background reading for anyone who hasn't seen it: bikeshed.com Regarding (a): Give people lots of choices, and they'll learn to pick the right ones. There is a reason the two main smartphone platforms have completely won out over the older stuff. It's just really sad there there aren't more to choose from, since iOS and Android both have major areas of suckage. Regarding (b): Public servants should not be making crucial decisions about technology. The government could never build the massively complex system described by OP, and regulation would have killed it quickly (probably by cementing an AT&T/IBM duopoly in technology).

hrktb 14y ago

a) b) and c) are all education problems, and I think for every other instance of unwashed masses catching up on technical knowledge, the only "solution" has been to wait decades for a generation shift with knowledgeable people becoming teachers and parents. People didn't understand cars, or electricity, or electronics either, but now everyone has a basic knowledge about the working of these, and they can get what the repair guy is saying. IMHO for any new technology there is a minimum time measured in years or decades depending on the complexity to have it properly assimilated. Mainstream internet is 20 years old ? Congress people should all be knowledgeable about it in 10 or 20 years.

dclowd9901 14y ago

I think the solutions simple: where traditional government oversight and legislation is ill equipped to understand the problems about which they're legislating, they need to create a technocratic branch to further handle legislation where it seems a fit. A sort of technocratic release valve. As far as how to appoint leaders or czars for the new technocratic branch, I'm stuck, but I'm sure someone could figure out a good way to incentivize nonpartisan experts to get involved. Maybe simply wikitize legislation, allowing a very decentralized passing of legislation.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>I think the solutions simple: where traditional government oversight and legislation is ill equipped to understand the problems about which they're legislating, they need to create a technocratic branch to further handle legislation where it seems a fit. You have to be careful with things like this because of regulatory capture. And also because setting up a group of people whose stated purpose is to regulate something causes them to try to slowly regulate every part of it, even in cases where private ordering would lead to better outcomes. A huge part of the existing problem is instances where Congress doesn't need to act but does anyway.

rayiner 14y ago

So before I was a lawyer I was an engineer, and most of my friends are still engineers. One of the things that I noticed then and still notice now is that tech people think they're special. They think that their problems are somehow qualitatively different from all the other problems that society has ever faced. They are simultaneously optimists (we can build anything!) and pessimists (we have no hope of influencing the system!). They are both self-centered (our things are the most important things!) and convinced of their own impotence (nobody cares about the things we do!). Indeed, this article exudes of "we're special!" If tech people want a world with sensible tech laws, the first thing they have to do is internalize one simple fact: computer tech isn't special. It's no different, in the grand scheme of things, than petrochemical refining or agriculture. It's just one specialized problem domain within a larger society. That realization is simultaneously humbling and empowering. If tech is the same as everything else, then that means the same social tools that work for everything else can be leveraged to work for tech! And that means (c), lots and lots of (c). But not just (c), even though (c) is the starting step. Ultimately, through (c) you can do (b). For example, a judge isn't a domain expert in petro-chemical refining either, but they make rulings on petro-chemical refining all the time and it works more or less well. That's because the system is structured so as to not require judges to be experts in everything. It is structured so people versed in a specific problem domain, be it petro-chemical refining or code, can explain in plain terms the moving parts of his case, and the judge, generally a highly intelligent person, can make decisions based on those explanations. And ultimately, through (c) you get to (a). Ultimately, the burden is on tech people to convince the public at large to care about the things that they care about. I've used this example elsewhere, but I think it's a really important one. The tech industry complains up and down about its inability to fight the "big money" of the media companies. Yet, the entire U.S. movies and music industry put together are about $50 billion in domestic revenue per year, or equivalent to just Apple's revenues in just one quarter. You're telling me that the tech industry can't fight the "big money" of an industry that's a fraction of its size? Please! Another example: Apple's revenues and profits are about the same as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase combined. Tech isn't the skinny schoolboy getting picked on by the big kids--it's the behemoth. The only sector that can compare is the petro-chemical sector. We live in a democracy. In a democracy, you can't just sit around waiting for everyone else to realize how wonderful and special you are and legislate to further your interests. You have to integrate. You have to participate in the political process. You have to explain to policymakers the moving parts of your industry, and you have to convince the public to care about the things you care about. And you have to accept that the policy makers sometimes will not agree with you (because they're balancing a broader array of interests than just your own), and you'll have to accept that the public won't necessarily buy into your worldview. But when that happens it's not an excuse to take your marbles and go home. For a contra-example, look at environmental legislation. Environmentalists have been incredibly successful considering there is very little money behind the movement, and that the people on the opposing side of the table are petro-chemical giants, each of which are 2-10x as large as the entire domestic media industry that tech people think are too monied to be overcome. Yet they have been remarkably successful given those odds! Why? Because they don't hole themselves up in ivory towers. They participate in the political process. They translate their value systems into things that perk up the ears of politicians (this environmental bill might cost a few jobs, but it will be more than made up for by the avoided health costs from the reduction in pollution!) Jobs, costs, etc. Those are things politicians care about, and indeed those are the things they're elected to care about! Sometimes, they even fight dirty. They participate in the war that is living in a democratic society with competing factions.